Much Ado About Nothing (literally)
Last night, I happened to catch the last about an hour of the Kenneth Branagh - Emma Thompson production of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". To be honest, when I saw this the first time about ten or fifteen years ago, it was my first introduction to that play - and I loved it.
So when the time came, I purchased the Digital Theatre's taping of MAAN with David Tennant and Catherine Tate from last year's theatre season. Since then, I've watched that production a number of times and grown familiar with both the way DT and CT and the other cast members interpreted the characters, as well as the way some of the speeches came across.
Last night's accidental tripping over the previous version of the play gave me an unexpected opportunity to compare the two.
My memory of the Branagh/Thompson production was that it was witty and funny and visually beautiful. The setting for this version was a villa - with gardens and grounds and pillars and lots of greenery. I suppose it was closer to what the Bard had actually intended his action to take place in. In contrast, last year's production was much more visually sparse, and very much theatre stage based, with a revolving setting that could, with a tweak of the furnishings and lighting, go from poolside to interior salon to church.
The Branagh production made use of some really quality actors in supporting roles - Brian Blessed was Leonato's brother, and Michael Keating was the Captain of the Watch, Dogberry, among others. Blessed has an immense stage presence that in many ways overpowers just about anybody else on stage with him - even when he wasn't emoting actively. Keating's Dogberry looked to me to be almost a play on the character of Beetlejuice, bad teeth and all. The DT/CT production didn't use any really big names (on this side of the pond that I know of) but the performances were really very solid - and actually far more energetic.
In fact, energy was one of the biggest points of divergence between the two productions. The Branagh production seemed to run on a much more muted emotional key altogether. The most vivid example of that was the difference between how Thompson interpreted the "Oh, that I were a man" speech as compared to how Tate did it. Both actresses were supposedly upset at Hero's disgrace and at Benedick's not jumping to her defense - but Thompson's delivery was so... lacking. It was almost a tossed-off line for her, where Tate chewed up the scenery in the delivery. Tate was passionate, and her "I would eat his heart in the marketplace" almost chilling in its implied viciousness. Thompson, for all her acting chops, simply didn't get that desperate wish for revenge across half as well.
Now admittedly, the DT/CT production seemed to be aimed at finding all the humorous points in Shakespeare's dialogue and mining it with not quite over the top acting. The most telling of comparisons (of that part of the Branagh production that I saw) was where Benedick was trying to write his sonnet to Beatrice. Branagh seemed not quite nonchalant in his inability to craft words, where Tennant struggled, both verbally and physically (via gestures and expression) with the rhyme. The appearance of Beatrice and the following exchange was also similarly either bland or sparkling.
Finally, no better contrast exists than the different way Branagh and Tennant interpreted the point where they told their respective Beatrices "Peace. I will stop your mouth." For Branagh, Thompson was already in his arms - so it was kind of "here, lemme give you a kiss." For Tennant, however, it was him finally physically stepping in and claiming Beatrice over her half-hearted objections.
So here I sit, having watched a show I dearly loved many years ago and finding it now so very unsatisfying. Things that were uproariously funny in the Tennant/Tate version fell almost completely flat in Branagh's. And now I ask myself if Branagh really understood the play, or was it for him Much Ado About Nothing both literally and figuratively.
I'm glad I have the Digital Theatre version. For my money, it's the far better version - and not just because I happen to be a fan of Tennant and Tate. The director simply seemed more on the ball and able to get more out of her cast than Branagh did.
I'm afraid I've a new favorite. And I'm now glad I never sprang for the DVD of the Branagh production, because I'd never watch it again.
So when the time came, I purchased the Digital Theatre's taping of MAAN with David Tennant and Catherine Tate from last year's theatre season. Since then, I've watched that production a number of times and grown familiar with both the way DT and CT and the other cast members interpreted the characters, as well as the way some of the speeches came across.
Last night's accidental tripping over the previous version of the play gave me an unexpected opportunity to compare the two.
My memory of the Branagh/Thompson production was that it was witty and funny and visually beautiful. The setting for this version was a villa - with gardens and grounds and pillars and lots of greenery. I suppose it was closer to what the Bard had actually intended his action to take place in. In contrast, last year's production was much more visually sparse, and very much theatre stage based, with a revolving setting that could, with a tweak of the furnishings and lighting, go from poolside to interior salon to church.
The Branagh production made use of some really quality actors in supporting roles - Brian Blessed was Leonato's brother, and Michael Keating was the Captain of the Watch, Dogberry, among others. Blessed has an immense stage presence that in many ways overpowers just about anybody else on stage with him - even when he wasn't emoting actively. Keating's Dogberry looked to me to be almost a play on the character of Beetlejuice, bad teeth and all. The DT/CT production didn't use any really big names (on this side of the pond that I know of) but the performances were really very solid - and actually far more energetic.
In fact, energy was one of the biggest points of divergence between the two productions. The Branagh production seemed to run on a much more muted emotional key altogether. The most vivid example of that was the difference between how Thompson interpreted the "Oh, that I were a man" speech as compared to how Tate did it. Both actresses were supposedly upset at Hero's disgrace and at Benedick's not jumping to her defense - but Thompson's delivery was so... lacking. It was almost a tossed-off line for her, where Tate chewed up the scenery in the delivery. Tate was passionate, and her "I would eat his heart in the marketplace" almost chilling in its implied viciousness. Thompson, for all her acting chops, simply didn't get that desperate wish for revenge across half as well.
Now admittedly, the DT/CT production seemed to be aimed at finding all the humorous points in Shakespeare's dialogue and mining it with not quite over the top acting. The most telling of comparisons (of that part of the Branagh production that I saw) was where Benedick was trying to write his sonnet to Beatrice. Branagh seemed not quite nonchalant in his inability to craft words, where Tennant struggled, both verbally and physically (via gestures and expression) with the rhyme. The appearance of Beatrice and the following exchange was also similarly either bland or sparkling.
Finally, no better contrast exists than the different way Branagh and Tennant interpreted the point where they told their respective Beatrices "Peace. I will stop your mouth." For Branagh, Thompson was already in his arms - so it was kind of "here, lemme give you a kiss." For Tennant, however, it was him finally physically stepping in and claiming Beatrice over her half-hearted objections.
So here I sit, having watched a show I dearly loved many years ago and finding it now so very unsatisfying. Things that were uproariously funny in the Tennant/Tate version fell almost completely flat in Branagh's. And now I ask myself if Branagh really understood the play, or was it for him Much Ado About Nothing both literally and figuratively.
I'm glad I have the Digital Theatre version. For my money, it's the far better version - and not just because I happen to be a fan of Tennant and Tate. The director simply seemed more on the ball and able to get more out of her cast than Branagh did.
I'm afraid I've a new favorite. And I'm now glad I never sprang for the DVD of the Branagh production, because I'd never watch it again.